It has to do with Linker's conclusion here, in which he determines that calling people racists is "unhelpful."pic.twitter.com/9j1qO7sAOz
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It has to do with Linker's conclusion here, in which he determines that calling people racists is "unhelpful."pic.twitter.com/9j1qO7sAOz
This is an increasingly common idea on the left: that calling out racism in white people is bad because it will offend them.
If you were raised in the church, you're familiar with the evangelical analog to this argument, which was called "seeker sensitivity."
The idea there was that the Gospel alone was too hurtful to be very persuasive to "unbelievers" so calling out "sin" and such was unhelpful.
Much better to focus on the more positive aspects of the Bible and just sort of hope they absorb the less comfortable facts by osmosis.
The seeker sensitive philosophy has not been wholly abandoned, but it mostly has. Reason being: conversion is not the ultimate aim of truth.
Sometimes the truth isn't persuasive or "helpful." It exists above utility. Facts just are. That doesn't mean you don't say them.
So if you want to take issue with Ta-Nehisi Coates' assessment of Trump's white supremacy, do it on the basis of whether it's right or wrong
NOT on the basis of whether or not it's "helpful" or "mean" or will end up being part of "why Trump won." You don't get to pick and choose.
Otherwise you're just trying to win a game at the moral expense of the same people you're supposedly trying to convert. [end]
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.